TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43(3) dated 08/12/2011 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under:- i) The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 64,89,000/- on account of the long term capital gain as short term capital gain and in allowing exemption u/s.54EC to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- in consequent to allowing the Capital Gains as Long Term Capital Gain. ii) The ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts in holding that the land on question was in possession of the Assessee merely because the letter of allotment was given on 14.09.2002 and ignoring other registered documents demonstrating that no possession or rights embedded there to were with the Assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee, the CIT(A) reversed the action of the AO as per following operative paras. "5. I have perused the facts of the case as enumerated by A.O. and as submitted by appellant. I have perused the case laws relied on by A.O. as well as appellant. After careful consideration of facts, submission and contention of both A.O. as well as of appellant, ground wise adjudication is as follows: The appellant's only ground of appeal is against the A.O's treatment of long term capital gain for sale of land as short term capital gain of Rs. 64,89,000/- and denial of claim of deduction u/s 54EC of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The A.O. after analyzing sale deed of impugned property emphasized that- (i) As per purchase d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant in cash while Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid vide cheque no. 110302 dt. 14.10.96 of the Ahmedabad Mercantile Co. op. Bank. The appellant produced an allotment letter and contended that the purchase deed executed on 04.01.07 was in the form of ratification of transaction of purchase of land and as per standard language such drafting at para 9 is not proper & correct because, the complete payment & consideration for the impugned land was already paid by appellant in 1996 and plot of land was already allotted in 2002 but the registration of transaction was effected in Jan. 2007 for want of sale of the land. The A.O. has not doubted purchase value rather adopted the same value as cost of acquisition. The A.O. though mentioned that .appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deed at para 9, in my view all other facts cannot be brushed aside for ownership and holding of land for more than 36 months. As per settled legal proposition, Registration is not a must but for further sale of any immovable property, the purchase document required to be registered which appellant has done. The legal proposition in this regard is also gives such ratio as follows: (i) Board circular No. 471 dt. 15.10.86 and No. 672 dt. 10.12.93 recognizes that 'Even allotment of a flat or house by State housing boards or co-operative societies would tantamount to purchase as on the date of allotment itself. (ii) The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. T. N. Arvinda Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46 held that the purchase in the context of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant in the return of income. In reference to claim of appellant of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s 54EC, since A.O. has simply denied the claim considering the ineligibility of said deduction from short term capital gain, but now since I have held the transfer of impugned land is resulting into long term capital gain therefore appellant is allowed the deduction u/s 54EC of the Act. This will result into deletion of addition of Rs. 64,89,000/- and relief to appellant accordingly." 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld.DR for the Revenue referred to para-9 of the English translation of the purchase-deed dated 04/01/2007 and submitted that the physical possession was handed over to th....